Psychodrilling

It seems John McCain is prepared to admit that his drilling schemes won't actually bring down gas prices but still defends the plan by saying: "Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial."

Um, okay. But if even conservatives agree that "aesthetics" are a valid reason against drilling, why doesn't that override the psychic benefits of drilling? More to the point, couldn't people use some policies that are beneficial in non-psychological ways. Maybe the federal government should provide a cash infusion to mass transit systems so that instead of buckling under increased demand we can improve the quality of people's experience and start running trains and buses more quickly? That wouldn't solve everyone's problems by any means, but it would deliver genuine help to many people in the short run.

Comments

Psycho Drilling?

Qu'est-ce que c'est?

Posted by Shine | June 24, 2008 12:58 PM

According to McCain, only the short-term impact is mostly psychological. The long-term impact is lower prices and greater energy independence.

I think he's wrong, but let's fairly state his position.

Posted by Doug | June 24, 2008 1:02 PM

If you think that getting more oil from our own sources is irrelevant due to minimal impact on the future, then I suggest that you should oppose the various "global warming" "fixes" on the same grounds

Posted by James Robertson | June 24, 2008 1:10 PM

As one of the evil traders and speculators that some are railing against (I trade commodity related equities rather than the commodities themselves), I'm pretty sure that doing things that have "psychological benefits" but little real benefit will be laughed at by traders as a sign of impotence by our government.

Pretty sure "psychological" solutions to real world problems don't work. Maybe I'm wrong, but if both candidates stated a commitment to reduce oil consumption in the US by 20% from current levels by 2025 or so, this would have both psychological and real world impacts far greater than increasing world oil supply by 1%.

Posted by tomboy | June 24, 2008 1:11 PM

Someone needs to inform McCain that in order for a placebo to work, the patient can't know they are getting a placebo.

Posted by DTM | June 24, 2008 1:11 PM

James Robertson,

So are you proposing the federal government nationalize whatever companies are pumping oil from these rigs?

Because otherwise that oil is just going right into the global marketplace. Which in turn means this oil will have a minimal impact on the amount of energy we get from domestic sources, just as it will have a minimal impact on domestic energy prices.

Posted by DTM | June 24, 2008 1:18 PM

Shine wins the thread.

As for global warming fixes vs more oil fixes, there's a difference between marginal benefit and irreparable harm. And, of course, the 2% possibility that we'll completely disembowel civilization. That kind of stuff.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 24, 2008 1:18 PM

I haz a "penis." It "works."

Posted by "James Robertson" | June 24, 2008 1:20 PM

"Psychodrilling" sounds like the name of a really hard song on Guitar Hero 4 ...

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 24, 2008 1:25 PM

Bravo, Shine.

I'll suggest an alternative to drilling that should provide comparable psychological impact: praying that God will resolve the oil crisis by supernatural means. Okay, it still suffers from the problem of aesthetics, but not as much. And it should have the same immediate impact in the real-world.

Posted by RSA | June 24, 2008 1:29 PM

crazy idea: allow states to auction off drilling right offshore (if they wish to). require that billions raised go into public transit. i think the alaska permanent fund is at $40bn now

Posted by AMH | June 24, 2008 1:31 PM

crazy idea: allow states to auction off drilling rights offshore (if they wish to), requiring that the billions raised go into public transit. i think the alaska permanent fund is at $40bn now...

Posted by AMH | June 24, 2008 1:32 PM

According to McCain, only the short-term impact is mostly psychological. The long-term impact is lower prices and greater energy independence.

I think he's wrong, but let's fairly state his position.

This is exactly right because prices are solely supply driven, especially in the face of inelastic demand!

McCain/Santorum '08!

Posted by HappyConservative | June 24, 2008 1:44 PM

Uh, HappyCon, in this case "inelastic demand" means it's hard to reduce. World demand seems to increase quite readily: even quadrupling the price of oil has only slowed it by a tiny bit.

Posted by SqueakyRat | June 24, 2008 1:56 PM

Maybe we should publicly flog illegal border crossing offenders. Just a few each week, on the mall in D.C. Wouldn't do anything to stem the tide of illegal immigration but it might provide a beneficial psychological impact within the anti-immigrant faction of our citizenry. And buy a few people cheeseburgers. You know, for the cheeseburger deprived people. Let's make a "Positive Psychological Impact List". It'd be pretty long, but hey, McCain started it!

Posted by steve duncan | June 24, 2008 1:58 PM

Maybe the federal government should provide a cash infusion to mass transit systems so that instead of buckling under increased demand we can improve the quality of people's experience and start running trains and buses more quickly?

Or, maybe the federal government should spend that money instead on improving the nation's urban roads and highways, promoting the adoption of telecommuting, carpooling, and staggered work schedules, and subsidizing sales of hybrid and alternate-fuel cars and trucks.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 2:03 PM

I'm still waiting for an offshore drilling proponent to show which states have asked for a lifting of the ban. Have any even seriously discussed it within their legislatures? If states are not expressing interest (and we already know that California is out), McCain's proposal is 100% useless.

Posted by LFC | June 24, 2008 2:13 PM

Well, at least McCain admits his plan for offshore drilling is a gimmick.

As for the "psychological effect"...consider 2 points:

1) We could achieve the same "psychological effect" by announcing an agressive plan to develop alternative sources of energy...in the sense that what provides the psychological relief is simply the intention and plan. So why not instead propose a program to give us viable renewable sources of energy, like wind power, solar, etc?

2) When the Saudi's announced over the weekend that they would dramatically increase their oil output, that was expected to have a psychological effect on the markets. It did not. Now if the Saudi's announcing an increase in oil output far greater and more immediate than what this offshore drilling could ever deliver did not move the market psychologically, then surely this offshore drilling scheme would not.

The bottom line: McCain is the same as Bush on economics: he is a fool. And McCain is being fed his lines from his lobbyists buddies that run his campaign.

Posted by cm | June 24, 2008 2:23 PM

Uh, HappyCon, in this case "inelastic demand" means it's hard to reduce. World demand seems to increase quite readily: even quadrupling the price of oil has only slowed it by a tiny bit.

Movement along a demand curve =\= shift in a demand curve.

Posted by HappyConservative | June 24, 2008 2:50 PM

Uh, HappyCon, in this case "inelastic demand" means it's hard to reduce. World demand seems to increase quite readily: even quadrupling the price of oil has only slowed it by a tiny bit.

Movement along a demand curve =\= shift in a demand curve.

Posted by HappyConservative | June 24, 2008 2:55 PM

Wouldn't it be easier just to have the government subsidize mental health care coverage?

Posted by Robert | June 24, 2008 3:28 PM

Wouldn't it be easier just to have the government subsidize mental health care coverage?

Posted by Robert | June 24, 2008 3:36 PM

Psycho-drilling goes well with psycho-gas tax vacation, psycho-terrorist recruiting incentives, and psycho-recovery of US international reputation.

More campaign bullshit.

Posted by robert powell | June 24, 2008 5:28 PM

I would like to see someone in the public sphere suggest that perhaps we shouldn't start drilling in every single possible space because we may need that oil in 20 or 30 years! Maybe 50?

Am I insane, or is every other person stuck on the exploration/environmental dichotomy? What about long-term energy security? I can't imagine we will ever be free of the need for liquid fuels and I for one would like to have the option of making jet fuel or something in the 2nd half of the century

Posted by Mark Entel | June 24, 2008 10:14 PM

"Am I insane, or is every other person stuck on the exploration/environmental dichotomy? What about long-term energy security? I can't imagine we will ever be free of the need for liquid fuels and I for one would like to have the option of making jet fuel or something in the 2nd half of the century

Posted by Mark Entel | June 24, 2008 10:14 PM"

Good point. Right now our engines, etc. are very inefficient. Do we really want to tap our last reserves while using inefficient engines?

Posted by Reality Man | June 25, 2008 8:38 AM

The claims that we can know how much drilling will impact prices 10 or more years in the future are total bullshit. Price levels at the margin are all about elasticity, and there's absolutely no way to know how much that's going to change over the long term.

Posted by TW Andrews | June 25, 2008 9:48 AM